I read quite some praises for Nikon 135mm f2 AI/AIS lenses. But then, I also found the score for this lens is relatively low in the famous http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html page. Th lens however is still relatively expensive in used market. Is it worth it?
I briefly owned the 135/2DC and my 135/2 AIS. I found the AIS to be slightly better wide open and the manual focusing far less finicky and trustworthy than the D. The D was not worth the extra ~$600.
I find Bjorn's analysis accurate, though his rating a bit low. It does very well when accurately focused. It has a lot of CA that can be fixed in post most times.
I just shot a roll of Provia with it yesterday with my FE2, but I don't hesitate to use it with my D800 if I want to lug it around.
Looking forward to the Nikon 135/1.8 (if Nikon ever gets it out) and the Zeiss 135/2 looks fantastic, but not so much the price.
I find it a wonderful lens that produces delicious bokeh. I'm not inclined to do detailed analysis of the performance of a lens. I'm inclined to rely on what i see and I've always been happy with what this lens does.
I have tried the Nikkor 135mm f/2 back in 2002 but didn't like the images shot at infinity. On film back then, I can see traces of colour fringing on the edges of highlights on the f/2 lens. This was when I already had the old Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 Ais. My current mint 135mm f/2.8 Ais is just one piece of awesome glass. It renders great & sharp shots from infinity to macro. Bokeh on the f/2 is a tiny bit better but really, in prints, it's hard to see this difference. I'd rather stick to a lighter, all rounder lens. Cheers.
Some samples of the mint 135mm f/2.8 Ais on a D3X. These shots have no PP on them:
Thanks very much for sharing your experiences with this lens and photos. The images are amazing. Also thanks Curtis for giving me some hint about the price.
ReyGay, Thanks very much for your recommendation for the f2.8 version.
I find it a wonderful lens that produces delicious bokeh. I'm not inclined to do detailed analysis of the performance of a lens. I'm inclined to rely on what i see and I've always been happy with what this lens does.
I had one years ago on film, and have had my current 135/2 ais for several years.
It's a decent lens that barely satisfies my 12MP D3 for absolute detail at distance.
Think of it as a "Photojournalist's Lens" from the 1970's.
It was created in a time when extreme high iso---using extremely grainy, low-res film-- was 1600.
At that time, it was a miracle to have a 135 that opened to f/2.
Now, it's main attraction is that it is deliberately designed to get a bit soft at close range, which makes it outstanding for people pictures. Head shots and the like.
Mine seems as "sharp" at f/4 as my 135/3.5 is at f/8.
But there is no doubt in my mind that modern designed lenses, like the new Zeiss 135/2, would blow it away on small detail rendition with a 24 or 36 MP camera.
I have no plans to sell mine.
See this Nikon article about how it was conceived and designed: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/30/index.htm
Fairly expensive for a manual focus Nikkor but nothing compared to Leica-R (the Leica-R 135, which is an ANCIENT and far inferior design, is about the same price). It's also a lot harder to find than most manual focus Nikkors, though. It took me months to find one.
It was worth it, though. Very easy to focus (much easier than the 105/1.8 and 180/2.8 in my experience), great sharpness, contrast, and saturation, and good (not 100MP, but good) bokeh.
Mar 06, 2013 at 07:44 AM